egalpin commented on issue #10712: URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/issues/10712#issuecomment-1729967513
Right, yep 👍 Just wanted to know if there was opposition to the idea generally, or absolute technical limitation from preventing even trying the approach. Thanks! A few other questions, assuming the logical/physical table approach: - I'd imagine there could still be a new API to allow users to alter which physical tables are associated with which logical table names? (I had previously loosely been using "alias" to describe this association) - How would you envision hybrid tables fitting into this paradigm? Is a hybrid table then a logical table mapping to 2 physical tables by default? Because of timeBoundary handling, it's not quite that simple. But should users be able to associate only `myTable_REALTIME` with a given logical table, and not include `myTable_OFFLINE` ? Or should hybrid tables be treated as a single non-separable entity, as though they are one table? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pinot.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pinot.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@pinot.apache.org
